It has been reported that, as of September 2017, Whatsapp is fully blocked in China. Although the service has seen some disruptions before, this is the first time that it has been blocked to such a complete extent. It has also been reported that this blockage forms part of China's social media crackdown, which followed the introduction of its Cybersecurity Law.

According to the Administrative Measures on Internet Forum Community Service, and the Administrative Measures on Internet Comment, providers of internet forum community services and providers of comment functions (together known as 'Speech Function Providers') are required to monitor the posts and comments, take action and report to the Cyberspace Administration of China if prohibited information has been published or discovered. In such situations, Speech Function Providers are required to cease transmission of the content, delete content or comments, restrict the comment function, close user accounts or sub-forums and revoke administrator powers (in case of a forum). For news-related comment functions, the comments must be censored before being published. Speech Function Providers are also required to set up a complaints procedure in relation to posts and comments.

It is reported that in China, there is centralized control over international internet gateways, and occasional local shutdowns of internet access occur to suppress social unrest. This is facilitated through a nationwide system known as the Golden Shield, which involves blocking, filtering, and monitoring access to international websites. Since 2012, even Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) have been reported blocked by the Golden Shield. In addition, the government has previously completely cut off access to communication systems during specific events, as seen in the 10-month internet blackout in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in 2009. Furthermore, specific web applications are blocked, and major platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Foursquare remain consistently inaccessible. It is reported that "Medium", an online website that allows users including news websites to publish sharable content is blocked since April 2016. In addition, Reddit was blocked in 2018, and Wikipedia faced restrictions in 2019. In addition, popular applications like Google Drive, Calendar, and Translate were also reported blocked. As of mid-2020, over 170 of the top 1,000 globally visited websites and social media platforms are inaccessible in China. This includes prominent international news outlets and independent Chinese-language news services. Many websites of human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House are also blocked.

According to Art. 6 of the Regulations on the Ecological Governance of Network Information Content, network information content producers shall not produce, reproduce or publish illegal information containing the following content: (i) Opposing the basic principles established by the Constitution; (ii) Spreading rumors and disturbing the economic and social order; (iii) Other contents prohibited by laws and administrative regulations. The Provisions state that when a social media user violates Art. 6 of the Provisions, the service platform must take measures including rectifying warnings, restricting functions, suspending updates and terminating accounts in accordance with the law, and must also notify the authorities.

According to Art. 19 of the Counter-Terrorism Law issued in 2016, telecom operators and Internet service providers shall establish content monitoring and network security programs. Likewise, companies are required to adopt precautionary security measures to prevent the dissemination of information on extremism, to report terrorism information to the authorities in a timely manner, to keep original records, and to promptly delete such messages to prevent further circulation. The law introduces both pecuniary fines and detentions up to 15 days for telecommunications operators and ISPs personnel who fail to “stop transmission” of terrorist or extremist content, “shut down related services,” or implement “network security” measures to prevent the transmission of such content.

According to Art. 7 of the Administrative Provisions on Information Services of Mobile Internet Application Programs, app providers are required to monitor online content and report violations to government authorities. App providers and app stores must not use apps to endanger national security or disrupt the public order, or to produce, reproduce, publish, or disseminate content banned by laws and regulations, according to the Provisions. In addition, app providers must monitor banned content and take action against users that publish banned content, by issuing warnings, restricting functions, stopping updates, or terminating accounts. They must also keep a record of the violations and report the matters to relevant government authorities. In addition, according to Art. 8, app stores are required to verify the legitimacy of app providers and ensure app providers protect user information and publish lawful content. App stores are required to take action against offending app providers by issuing warnings, suspending their publications, or removing the aberrant apps from the stores. App stores are also required to keep records of the violations and report them to the relevant government authorities.

According to the Administrative Measures on Internet Forum Community Service and the Administrative Measures on Internet Comment, providers of Internet forum community services and providers of comment functions (together known as 'Speech Function Providers') are required to obtain and verify the identity information of users and enter into service agreements with them.

Intermediaries are effectively required to monitor content in order to comply with the copyright law. If they fail to do so, they face a variety of sanctions, including the withdrawal of their business license and/or criminal penalties. Additionally, a 2008 suit brought on by NuCom Online International against Shanghai TuDou Network Technology determined that, in cases where platforms failed to take reasonable action to stop an infringement, they can be held liable. This involved the upload of a movie which was very popular at the time of the lawsuit.

According to the Regulation on Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, intermediaries are obliged to obtain real identity information when providing internet access services and information publication services. Furthermore, it is required that users of blogs, microblogs, instant-messaging services, online discussion forums, news comment sections, and related services register with their real names and avoid spreading content that challenges national interests. Finally, according to the Counterterrorism Law (Art. 21) providers of telecommunication, internet, and financial services are required to conduct identity checks of their customers or clients and refuse to provide services to those that decline to provide such information. No implementing regulations have been issued yet. This requirement came into force via the implementing Regulation on the Management of Internet Posts and Comment Services in October 2017.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability beyond copyright infringement is absent in China's law and jurisprudence. On one hand, a safe harbor defense for internet intermediaries providing hosting services is spelt out in the Guiding Framework on Protection of Copyright for Network Dissemination (Art. 14-17, 22). The hosting defense established in Art. 22, only applies to service providers who host third-party materials. However, Art. 36 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China states that a "network service provider" shall assume the tort liability if it infringes "upon the civil right or interest of another person." Furthermore, the Tort Law allows victims of the tort can notify the network service provider to demand the deletion, blocking or disconnection of the cause of infringement. Failing to do so can lead to further liability for the network provider in the event of further harm to the user. Finally, liability can be further increased in the event that the network service provider knew of the infringement but did not take action.

According to the Administrative Provisions on Information Services of Mobile Internet Application Program, app providers must ensure that new app users register with their real names by verifying users’ mobile phone numbers and/or other identity information.

According to Art. 14 of Decree No. 292, ISPs are required to provide user information to the authorities upon request, without judicial oversight or transparency.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability for copyright infringement is absent in China's law and jurisprudence. On one hand, a safe harbor defense for internet intermediaries providing hosting services is spelt out in the Guiding Framework on Protection of Copyright for Network Dissemination (Art. 14-17, 22). The hosting defense established in Art. 22, only applies to service providers who host third-party materials. However, Art. 36 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China states that a "network service provider" shall assume the tort liability if it infringes "upon the civil right or interest of another person." Furthermore, the Tort Law allows victims of the tort can notify the network service provider to demand the deletion, blocking or disconnection of the cause of infringement. Failing to do so can lead to further liability for the network provider in the event of further harm to the user. Finally, liability can be further increased in the event that the network service provider knew of the infringement but did not take action.

Art. 18 of the Counterterrorism Law requires Internet service providers and telecommunication sector to “provide technical support and assistance, such as technical interface and decryption, to support the activities of the public security and state security authorities in preventing and investigating terrorist activities.”

The Provisions authorize local law enforcement agencies to conduct remote or onsite inspections of the businesses under their supervision. Inspections must be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with general regulatory obligations on all businesses under the Cybersecurity Law or specific obligations applicable to internet service providers, including, but not limited to, the implementation of technical measures for network security and data protection that comply with national standards. During such an inspection, law enforcement agencies can physically enter business sites, machine rooms, review and copy relevant information and assess the operational conditions and effectiveness of the technical measures taken by the company to safeguard the security of networks and information.